mcgees.org

Read the news about the West Memphis Three DNA evidence.  The WM3, in a travesty of justice (summed up succinctly by a scene in court in which black concert t-shirts owned by the defendants were submitted as evidence that the three were “satanists”) were given life sentences almost 15 years ago.

To be sure, even if they had been guilty, there is no way the conviction should have stood, given the absolutely inexcusable conduct by the prosecution and the campaign of lies and innuendo that followed them.  As it happens, they were without a doubt innocent.

This spring, the WM3 will — it is to be hoped — get a chance to present compelling DNA evidence exonerating them.

Follow that link for more news and for a way to make a contribution for Echols’s, Misskelley’s, and Baldwin’s defense fund.

Ed Vedder’s short tour of the West Coast will feature prime-seat packages at auction, with all proceeds going towards the WM3’s defense.

The US Department of Homeland Security is mandating the introduction of a federal ID, issued by the states, at a cost of $14 billion.  If you live in a non-compliant state, your driver’s license or state ID will not meet federal standards, and a US passport will have to be used for all “federal purposes”, including visits to national parks.

Bad, bad, bad.  But slightly offset by the very pretty girl in the ad CNN chose to run next to the story (”Pay no attention to the privacy issues!  Look!  Someone pretty!”)

Breaking news.  A Federal Court Judge in Michigan has ruled the “Terrorism Surveillance Program” as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments and illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  More here.

We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution … It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I was on hold to 911 for three minutes today.  This is unacceptable.  That is more than enough time to mean the difference between life and death.

I remember several years ago I found a book on Amazon called Dial 911 and Die, via a review the author had written about a legal humor book I had purchased.  His conclusion, as far as I can determine, is to equip oneself with a firearm.  While I’m a lefty gun control advocate, the three minutes gives one pause.  This time I was reporting a witnessed auto accident — but next time?

The book, by the way, is distributed by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, self-described as “America’s Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership.”  Their website includes the essay Some Judaic Sources on the Right to Bear Amrs:

The common thread in [Biblical] narratives is that being disarmed when danger threatens is seen as a national disaster and a cause for lament. Disarmament of individual citizens is a problem — not a solution … We indeed yearn for the time of the Final Redemption when “They shall beat their swords into plowshares” but it is a very poor idea to do this unilaterally before that point in history!

More Legal Protection for FOSS Developers: “The Software Freedom Law Center has launched the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is designed to permit certain projects accepted as members, such as Wine, uClibc and BusyBox currently, to apply for and then benefit from nonprofit tax-exempt status… [W]hat the Conservancy is offering is, for those accepted as members, to take that administrative load off of you developers, because they know how to do this, and you probably don’t.”

Well, now it’s official.  A whale cannot sue a person.

“Are they thy punters’ keepers?” If we excuse the lousy grammar, we can answer “yes, in California”. Bartenders absolutely have culpability when serving drinks to inebriated customers. But everyone who has been in the situation will understand the difficulty when it’s your friend who gets behind the wheel after having too many. What do you do, physically restrain him? Call the cops? Or just decide never to drink with the person again?

France just decided that the Fraisses were not culpable.  I wonder what California would say.

A Briton’s guide to crashing the U.S. presidential elections.

There are lots of things that some people have a problem with that don’t bother me at all, even though I wouldn’t do them myself: gay sex, body piercing, first-trimester abortion, smoking marijuana, and promiscuity with careful protection, for instance. There are lots of things that I don’t personally approve of but don’t think should be illegal, such as heroin use, cigarette smoking, extreme body modification, Abrahamic religion, and S&M. There are even things involving death that fall into the latter category for me, such as suicide and properly documented euthanasia. I think the resources of society should be extended to help these people, should they want it, but in the end I believe people have a right to their own bodies and minds. But surely — surely — we have to have a law against one man offering himself for sacrifice and another man killing and eating him.  Right?  I mean — right?

Problem is, I can’t figure out how to justify this. If suicide is OK, and meat-eating is OK, and hurting and killing another person with his or her consent is OK, why is this behaviour different? Why am I so viciously opposed to this? Some people will surely claim this points to a failure of a life lived without a God-given moral code, so if you want to post and say something like this, that’s fine, go ahead. If you want to post a non-answer, such as “How can you approve of those things in the first list?” or “How can you oppose the things in the second list?” that’s fine, too. But I’m really hoping some fellow extreme lefties among my readers (Dave? Becca?) will help me tackle this. Is there something unique about human slaughter and human cannibalism among “consenting adults” (let’s be really clear here, there’s no way we’re not talking about severely fucked-up people with significant mental health problems) that makes it worthy of legislation, or do I need to bite the bullet and say that if people are free to their own bodies, they’re free to do this as well?

From Metafilter:

It was a week before Xmas in 1989. I, my girlfriend, and a friend from out of town had gone out to a Sunday brunch … When we got home, we found that our apartment had been burglarized. The back window was smashed , the Xmas tree … was knocked over, all the presents had been opened, and everything wearable or electronic was stolen. We called the police. They showed up and came in to inspect the scene of the crime. They took statements from us, looked at the broken window, tsked-tsked about the rising crime rate in our neighborhood, congratulated us on having the foresight to have renter’s insurance, and were preparing to leave when one cop turned around.

“What’s that?” he asked, pointing to my three-foot-tall bong pipe leaning against the couch.

As he came back in the apartment and I watched in horror as my life dissolved, his partner put a hand on his shoulder and said the coolest thing I’ve ever heard come out of a cop’s mouth:

“When we catch those burglars, we’ll be sure to ask them why they left that there.”

Let’s say you’re convicted in Great Britain of a crime you didn’t commit. After decades in prison proof of your innocence comes to light. David Blunkett (Home Secretary) wants the right to bill you for your time spent in prison. No joke. The reasoning is that you shouldn’t have been able to scam free room and board off the state if you didn’t have reason to be there in the first place.

New medical privacy laws have gone into effect recently.  It used to be that at my pharmacy, when one picked up a prescription, a sticker printed with your name, the date, and the medicine name was affixed to a clipboard.  A little box was provided for you to sign for receipt.  A little glance upwards was all that was required to see the names — and prescriptions — of the people in line ahead of you.  No longer is this permitted.  Likewise, at the the medical testing facility where I have gone to have blood drawn, your name and the prescribed tests were written on a sheet that anyone visiting the office could see.  This, too, is now forbidden.

The overall point — the protection of personal information — has not necessarily sunk into everyone’s heads yet.  My physician still hollers things across the office: “Could you check to see if Josh has received his second Hep B vaccine yet?”  And the techs at my pharmacy seem not to have grokked the gestalt yet.  To wit, a telephone conversation I just had:

Me:  Hi, I’m checking to see if I’ve forgotten to pick up any prescriptions.

Tech:  What’s the name?

Me:  McGee.  Joshua.

Tech:  The last thing I show is from the 19th.  Have you picked anything up since the 19th?

I suddenly wondered how much information she was ready to give out over the telephone.

Me:  Err, I don’t know, what was it I picked up on the 19th?

Tech:  No, it was a call from the 19th.  That was the Lorazepam.  Want me to check if you’ve picked it up yet?

Bingo.  That’s a psychotropic med, but they were comfortable revealing it to someone on the line who merely mentioned my name.  I was calling from work, so it’s not as if caller ID betrayed me.  And I’m sure there’s no chance she recognized my voice: that sort of service has pretty much disappeared, and I’ve only been using this pharmacy since March anyway.  I suspect I could have gotten more information from her: other meds, other dates, prescribing doctors.  Which makes one wonder, who really cares about those little stickers if I can get all of this over the telephone?  And what self-respecting private investigator would bother raiding your trash if this is all free for the asking?

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” says English jurist William Blackstone.  The ratio 10:1 has become known as the “Blackstone ratio.”  Lawyers “are indoctrinated” with it “early in law school.”  “Schoolboys are taught” it.  In the fantasies of legal academics, jurors think about Blackstone routinely.

The essay “n Guilty Men“, published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, is one of the most hilarious things I have ever read.  Rarely have I seen a better executed example of bone-dry humor.

MeFi has posted a link to what must be the strangest online disclaimer yet: “If you are an Australian, Japanese or Canadian person or are viewing this page from Australia, Canada or Japan you must exit the site by clicking on the ‘I disagree’ button below.”

Playing off of the U.S. restrictions on exporting encryption software to “States of Concern”, a couple people note that “The Axis of Politeness must be stopped or the terrorists will have won!”   (According to a humorous article from the Center for Defense Information, however, the three nations are more accurately called “just plain states”.)

Jamie “Hello, I’m a scum-sucking nematode” Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting, has voiced his opinions regarding TiVo and other modern recorders.  In his view, skipping television commercials is theft, the violation of an implicit contract between the viewer and the broadcaster.  This is hogwash.  When I sign my name to the dotted line of a cable television agreement in the United States, I am agreeing to pay a certain amount of money per month to receive a particular spectrum of video streams.  I am not in the business of subsidizing content providers.

It is impossible to feel sympathy for these gigantic broadcasters.  They are not broadcasting out of charity and benevolence, they are in it to make money.  The broadcasters have chosen one revenue model among many: they sell portions of airtime to third parties.  If a subset of consumers fail to watch the advertising, then the value of these ad slots will fall.  The broadcasters may complain that the resultant loss of revenue will put them out of business, but it is not my concern whether TBS continues to air.  If it goes off the air, we will have to do without, but that is the market’s prerogative.

There are other revenue models for broadcasters.  The broadcaster could charge the consumer for receiving the content (HBO).  It could rely on voluntary and/or governmental support (PBS).  Or the whole system could be overhauled, such that one must license a television and pay annually to renew it (BBC).

I am aware of the risks.  If a broadcaster runs out of money they will go off the air.  LIkewise, if people stop buying M&Ms, the producers will stop making them.  This is capitalism.  Someone should let Kellner know.

Ernest Miller at LawMeme has issued a tongue-in-cheek list of other new copyright violations, including getting to the movie theatre late and missing the previews, inviting friends over to watch pay-per-view, and changing radio stations in the car when a commercial comes on (”The RIAA has not yet taken a position on whether it is permissible to switch channels when the listener doesn’t like the song,” Miller notes.)  The full list can be found here.

Under California Penal Code Section 12020, it is unlawful to carry a knife “concealed upon [one’s] person … that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.”  Concealing a nonlocking folding knife is prohibited only if the blade of the knife is locked into position.

Here is a comparison of changes between the U.S. Government International Terrorism policies of 1995 and 2002.  Green text indicates text that only occurs in one version.  Blue text indicates text changes.  (Sources: U.S. State Department, Electronic Research Collection; post suggested by Guardian Unlimited “US Hostages Text” article.)

Hooray for the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.  This law compels the government to reveal a staggering range of material upon request, but you may need to keep nagging them for a few years.  Take, for instance, a 1971 “telcon” between President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.  Chinese Premier Zhou En-Lai had invited Nixon to send a secret emissary to China to make preparations for Nixon’s 1972 trip.  Kissinger wants to be the envoy, but Nixon is seen toying with him, suggesting other people he might consider.  An excerpt:  

P:   I had a couple of thoughts on this.  One with regard to the [Vietnam negotiator Ambassador David K. E.] Bruce thing which seems to me may pose to them a difficult problem because of him [sic] being directly involved in the Vietnam negotiations.  Secondly, let me think of whether there is something [sic] else — how about Nelson [Rockefeller]?

K:   No.

P:   Can’t do it, huh?

K:   Mr. President, he wouldn’t be disciplined enough, although he is a possibility.

P:   It would engulf him in a big deal and he is outside of the Government, you see.

K:   Let me think about it, I might be able to hold him in check.

P:   It is intriguing, don’t you think?

K:   It is intriguing.

P:   How about [future President George H. W.] Bush?

K:   Absolutely not, he is too soft and not sophisticated enough.

P:   I thought of that myself.

…

K:   Bush would be too weak.

P:   I thought so too but I was trying to think of somebody with a title.

One more:  

K:   The difference between them [the Chinese] and the Russians is that if you drop some loose change, when you go to pick it up the Russians will step on your fingers and the Chinese won’t. 

The treatment by the United States of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in the past weeks has generated a storm of international controversy.  The Bush administration have decreed that the persons captured in Afghanistan are not prisoners of war in the legal sense but rather unlawful combatants, and are therefore not subject to the terms of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereafter “the Convention”).

I am not an expert in military law, but this position seems untenable.  The U.S. Executive branch have been perpetrating what I consider to be an act of misdirection meant to distract attention.  The official word has been that the prisoners do not qualify due to their not being organized into recognized military units, not wearing uniforms, and not bearing arms openly.  This belies the fact that a detainee must be classified as a prisoner of war if he falls into any of six categories, only one of which (category 2) contains the provisions cited by the Bush administration.    The beginning of Article 4 is excerpted below.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

     1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

     2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

          (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

          (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

          (c) That of carrying arms openly;

          (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

     3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

     4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

     5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

     6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

By the description of the Bush administration, some detainees are of Taliban origin, some of al Qaeda origin.    Despite the obfuscatory efforts of the Bush administration to equate the two groups and use their names interchangeably, these are separate groups of people.  First consider the Taliban detainees: these individuals are unquestionably prisoners of war under the terms of 4(A)(1), “Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict.”  This is indisputable.  It does not matter if the U.S. did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan; the status of such combatants is expressly protected in 4(A)(3).  The Taliban were the de facto government, as openly acknowledged by the administration, and Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.

It may be true that al Qaeda members are not covered by the Convention.  To decide this, a “a competent tribunal” should operate on a case-by-case basis, as mandated in Article 5, but the Bush administration have denied the captives this entitlement as well.  I had originally intended a more thorough exploration of these topics, but a press release that I found, issued yesterday by the organization Human Rights Watch, does a much better job of this than I could have.  I strongly entreat you to read this and reach your own conclusions

I admit with embarassment that before researching this I had no conception of the extent of the Convention.  If asked, I would have said that the convention allows a POW to state nothing but his name, rank and serial number to inquisitors, prevents the torture of prisoners, and mandates their medical care.  This summation does not afford even a glimpse into the generosity of the treaty.  (In my sampling below, the italicized numbers refer to the source Articles of the Convention.)

Under the Convention, detainees are allowed to keep all effects and articles in their possession at the time of capture, excepting arms, military equipment and documents, and horses; this specifically includes clothing, items of sentimental value, and items of personal protection such as gas masks and helmets (18).  The prisoners must be housed in dormitories at least as desirable as those in which their captors reside, with allowances for the customs of the prisoners (25); specifically they may not be housed in penitentiaries by default (22).  The prisoners’ habitual diet must be taken into account when providing food rations (26).  They shall be able to freely exercise their religious duties (34), and if a minister of a prisoner’s faith is not in captivity with him, the captors must provide an appropriate minister at the request of the prisoner (37).  All prisoners must be given a monetary allowance (60; more on this later) and this money, along with money the prisoners had when captured (18, 58), may be used to purchase foodstuffs and personal articles at reasonable prices from a store set up within the camp (28).

The captors must assist prisoners in the preparation of legal wills satisfying the legal requirements of their own countries in case the prisoner dies in captivity; if the captive does indeed die his will shall be forwarded to his home country, he shall be buried honorably (or cremated, if he so desires), the grave must be clearly marked and properly maintained, and its location centrally recorded (120).  A prisoner of war may not be tried in a civilian court of the detaining power unless a soldier of the captor power is also permitted to be tried in a civilian court, and any trial must guarantee independence and impartiality (84).  The prisoner on trial must have access to adequate counsel (99).

A prisoner shall be allowed to send and receive letters and postcards (71).  The prisoner shall also be able to receive packages in the mail containing a wide range of items.  A prisoner could, for instance, receive a package containing granola bars, a six-pack of Coca Cola, a coat, extra socks, Band Aids, a Koran, a crucifix, a dictionary and thesaurus, a hobby microscope, a guitar, a rugby uniform, and a GED test form (72).  These may be sent to a prisoner for free, without charge for custom duties or even postage (74).

I had no idea of the scope of this convention.  I love it.  This is the most civilized law I have ever read; it paints a picture of a camp much like the camp portrayed in the 1997 film The Brylcreem Boys.  It could be argued that these rights and resources exceed those afforded to civilian prisoners of the United States, and even exceed those afforded to the destitute and homeless.  This should not suggest that we need to reduce the living standards of prisoners of war, but rather that we should not allow our own citizens to live in squalor.

I wrote that I would return to the issue of the allowances.  These are specified in exact values of Swiss francs.  For example, prisoners ranking below sergeant would receive the equivalent of eight francs per month in the local currency, majors, colonels, etc. would receive fifty francs, generals seventy-five francs.  In 1950, one Swiss franc was equal to US$0.23.  Adjusting for inflation, this is equivalent to US$1.64 in year 2000 dollars.  As of this writing one Swiss franc is equal to US$0.58.  This is a factor of three decrease in buying power.  It think it would more desirable if this were calibrated against actual buying power in the host country (some function of, say, the prices of beef, automobiles, electricity, and books.)

A grand jury today indicted a man called Zacarias Moussaoui for conspiring
in the 11 September attacks.  The six charges are as follows: Conspiracy to
Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries, Conspiracy to
Commit Aircraft Piracy, Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft, Conspiracy to Use
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees,
and Conspiracy to Destroy Property.  The indictment
makes for interesting reading, as do the statutes under which he is
charged.  I present below, for those who are interested, the text of the
sections.  I have emphasized in bold italic type specific
sections that may be noteworthy.

Count One, Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National
Boundaries (18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(a)(2) & (c))

(Text

of Statute)

Section 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

      (a) Prohibited Acts. -

        (1) Offenses. - Whoever, involving conduct transcending

      national boundaries and in a circumstance described in

subsection

      (b) -

          (A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in

        serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any

        person within the United States; or

          (B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to

        any other person by destroying or damaging any structure,

        conveyance, or other real or personal property within the

        United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or

        damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal

        property within the United States;

      in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States,

      shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).

        (2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies. - Whoever

      threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts

      or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection

(c).

      […]

      (c) Penalties. -

        (1) Penalties. - Whoever violates this section shall be

      punished -

          (A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from

any

        other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by

        imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

          (B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or

        for life;

          (C) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 35 years;

          (D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting

        in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 30

        years;

          (E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or

        other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more

        than 25 years;

          (F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for

        any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have

        applied had the offense been completed; and

          (G) for threatening to commit an offense under this section,

        by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

        (2) Consecutive sentence. - Notwithstanding any other provision

      of law, the court shall not place on probation any person

      convicted of a violation of this section; nor shall the term of

      imprisonment imposed under this section run concurrently with any

      other term of imprisonment.

      

Count Two, Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy (49 U.S.C. §§
46502(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)(B))

(Text

of Statute)

Section 46502. Aircraft piracy

      (a) In Special Aircraft Jurisdiction. - (1) In this subsection -

        (A) ”aircraft piracy” means seizing or exercising control of

      an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United

      States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any

      form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.

      […]

      (2) An individual committing or attempting or conspiring to

    commit aircraft piracy -

      […]

        (B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death

      of another individual results from the commission or attempt,

      shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

      […]

Count Three, Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft (18 U.S.C. §§
32(a)(7) and (34))

(Text

of Statute), (Text

of Statute)

Section 32. Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

      (a) Whoever willfully -

        (1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or

wrecks any

      aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United

      States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in

      interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

      […]

        (7) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under

      paragraphs (1) through (6) of this subsection;

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty

    years or both.

      

      Whoever is convicted of any crime prohibited by this chapter,

    which has resulted in the death of any person, shall be subject

    also to the death penalty or to imprisonment for life.

Count Four, Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction (18 U.S.C.
§§ 2332a(a))

(Text

of Statute)

Section 2332a. Use of certain weapons of mass destruction

      (a) Offense Against a National of the United States or

    Within the United States. - A person who, without lawful

    authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass

    destruction [From the indictment: “namely, airplanes intended for use

    as missiles, bombs, and similar devices”. -JHM] (other than a

    chemical weapon as that term is defined

    in section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector

    (as those terms are defined in section 178) -

        (1) against a national of the United States while such national

      is outside of the United States;

        (2) against any person within the United States, and the

      results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or,

in

      the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have

affected

      interstate or foreign commerce; or

        (3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the

      United States or by any department or agency of the United

      States, whether the property is within or outside of the United

      States,

    shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if

death

    results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of

    years or for life.

Count Five, Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees (18 U.S.C.
§§ 1114 & 1117)

(Text

of Statute), (Text

of Statute), (Text

of Statute)

Section 1114. Protection of officers and employees of the United
States

      Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of

the

    United States or of any agency in any branch of the United

States

    Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while

    such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the

    performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an

    officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account

    of that assistance, shall be punished -

        (1) in the case of murder, as provided under section

1111;

        (2) in the case of manslaughter, as provided under section

      1112; or

        (3) in the case of attempted murder or manslaughter, as

      provided in section 1113.

Section 1117. Conspiracy to murder

      If two or more persons conspire to violate section

1111, 1114,

    1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do

any

    overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be

    punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for

life.

Referenced:

Section 1111. Murder

      (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice

    aforethought.  Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in

wait,

    or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and

    premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or

    attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder,

kidnapping,

    treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated

sexual abuse or sexual

    abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated

    design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human

    being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

      Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

      (b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of

    the United States,

      Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be

punished

    by death or by imprisonment for life;

      Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be

    imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Count Six, Conspiracy to Destroy Property (18 U.S.C. §§
844(f),(i),(n))

(Text

of Statute)

Section 844. Penalties

      (f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or

attempts to

    damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any

building,

    vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part

    owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States,

or any

    department or agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less

than

    5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or

    both.

      (2) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and

    as a result of such conduct, directly or proximately causes

    personal injury or creates a substantial risk of injury to any

    person, including any public safety officer performing duties,

    shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40

    years, fined under this title, or both.

      (3) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and

    as a result of such conduct directly or proximately causes the

    death of any person, including any public safety officer performing

    duties, shall be subject to the death penalty, or

imprisoned for

    not less than 20 years or for life, fined under this title, or

    both.

      […]

      (i) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or

attempts to

    damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any

building,

    vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or

    foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign

    commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not

more

    than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if personal

    injury results to any person, including any public safety officer

    performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct

    prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not less

    than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or

    both; and if death results to any person, including any public

    safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate

result of

    conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall also be subject to

    imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death

penalty or to

    life imprisonment.

      […]

      (n) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who

    conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter

shall be

    subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death)

as

    the penalties prescribed for the offense the commission of which

    was the object of the conspiracy.

I have just found what may be my favorite snack chip: Sweet Brown Rice & Black Bean 100% Organic Kettle Tortilla Chips from Kettle Foods.  They have an extremely satisfying snap, a good high-resistance crunch, a delicious interplay of sweet whole grain flavors, and are not oily or stale.  The flavor and texture profile is different from any other tortilla chip I have tried; the back of the bag explains this:

Kettle^TM Tortilla Chips emerge from organically grown corn, slowly hand cooked, and then stone ground with sprouted corn for a natural sweetness.

Aha.  Interesting.

Even more interesting is the fact that there is a footnote for this sentence, which describes that this process is patented.  I visited the IBM Patent Server and, sure enough, US Patent #5,298,274, issued 03/29/1994 to Nirbhao S. Khalsa of Portland OR, is entitled “Methods for making tortilla chips and tortilla chips produced thereby”.  The patent comprises 26 claims, the first five of which I reproduce here:

    1. A method for making tortilla chips, comprising:

• mixing a raw, germinated grain fraction with a non-germinated grain fraction to produce a grain mixture;


• grinding the grain mixture to produce a dense dough;


• sheeting the dough to form a dough sheet;


• cutting the dough sheet to provide desired dough shapes; and


• heating the dough shapes to produce tortilla chips.

    2. A method for making tortilla chips according to claim 1, wherein the raw, germinated grain fraction comprises raw, germinated whole kernel corn, and the non-germinated grain fraction comprises non-germinated corn.

    3. A method for making tortilla chips according to claim 1, wherein the raw, germinated grain fraction comprises about 2% to about 25% of the grain mixture.

    4. A method for making tortilla chips according to claim 1, wherein the dense dough produced by grinding the grain mixture has a moisture content of about 48% to 50%.

    5. A method for making tortilla chips according to claim 1, additionally comprising germinating a raw grain by soaking dried, whole grain in a liquid for a soaking period, draining the soaked grain, and periodically rinsing the soaked grain and maintaining it in a constant temperature environment for a germination period.

This is deeply amusing to me.  First is the use of language, not as a rapier or a scalpel but as a barbell.  Consider the semantic content of “sheeting the dough to form a dough sheet.”  I see.  It is terribly counterintuitive that by sheeting dough one would end up with a sheet of dough.  Or “mixing a raw, germinated grain fraction with a non-germinated grain fraction to produce a grain mixture.”  The enlightenment continues: not only does sheeting dough yield a dough sheet, but mixing grain yields a grain mixture.

Now I know that the corn chips’ lawyers did not invent modern legal parlance, so it would be unfair to shift the entire burden onto them.  But it is startling how little information can be conveyed by such detailed description.  Imagine I were to tell you that “blorking the dough forms a dough blork”, or that “zripping two kinds of grain yields a grain zrip.”  Either you know what a blork and a zrip are, in which case my sentence is pointless, or you do not, in which case my sentence is meaningless.  The mathematician in me rebels against circularly-defined terms.  What is a bisected angle?  Well, silly, it’s an angle that has been bisected!

But this is also funny on a tonal level.  It would be interesting to me to explore whether modern legal sentence forms derived from Church documents, as this is terribly reminiscent of the Athanasian Creed:

Now this is the catholic faith:

     That we worship one God in trinity
     and the trinity in unity,
     neither blending their persons
     nor dividing their essence.
          For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
          the person of the Son is another,
          and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
          But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
          their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

     What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
          The Father is uncreated,
          the Son is uncreated,
          the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

          The Father is immeasurable,
          the Son is immeasurable,
          the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

          The Father is eternal,
          the Son is eternal,
          the Holy Spirit is eternal.

               And yet there are not three eternal beings;
               there is but one eternal being.
               So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
               there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

          Similarly, the Father is almighty,
          the Son is almighty,
          the Holy Spirit is almighty.
               Yet there are not three almighty beings;
               there is but one almighty being.

          Thus the Father is God,
          the Son is God,
          the Holy Spirit is God.
               Yet there are not three gods;
               there is but one God.

          Thus the Father is Lord,
          the Son is Lord,
          the Holy Spirit is Lord.
               Yet there are not three lords;
               there is but one Lord.

          [etc….]

Or, on a less reverent note, Monty Python:

"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the
      Holy Pin.  Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.  Three
      shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting
      shalt be three.  Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two,
      excepting that thou then proceed to three.  Five is right out.  Once
      the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou
      thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty
      in my sight, shall snuff it.'"

An excellent venue to explore the necessity of such legalistic speech would certainly be the game Nomic, invented nineteen years ago by philosophy professor Peter Suber and popularized by Douglas Hofstadter in his late great Metamagical Themas column in Scientific American.  In the game of Nomic, changing the game rules is a move.  I first read about this several years ago, but have yet to actually play it; it has been essentially a thought experiment.  One of these days I would like to play an actual game (perhaps, or even preferably, online.)

Just now, in hunting for hyperlinks, I thought I would try to purchase a copy of Suber’s book The Paradox of Self-Amendment in which Nomic appears as an appendix.  I checked BookFinder but all the offers I found were for new copies of the book for $68 apiece, and I expect that the author would see very little (or any) of this.  Yes, I want to read the book; but perhaps it makes more sense to read the free online version.